[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: webkit-dev
Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] Feedback on Blink's text fragment directive proposal
From: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa () webkit ! org>
Date: 2020-09-23 7:20:00
Message-ID: CABNRm62GPsgH1Jep8KcKTQVAMo10jQcJJ+FN+459YPctZaQYvg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 7:35 AM David Bokan <bokan@chromium.org> wrote:
> Friendly ping to get an answer here.
>
> Do my answers above address those points or is there anything else I can
> clarify?
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:42 PM David Bokan <bokan@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> [sending (again, sorry) from correct e-mail]
>>
>> I think Nick's replies
>> <https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2019-December/030998.html> mostly
>> still apply, some updated answers to those questions.
>>
>> (1) We're concerned about compatibility issues in a world where some
>>> browsers support this but not all. Aware browsers will strip `:~:`, but
>>> unaware browsers won't. I saw that on the blink-dev ItS thread, it was
>>> mentioned that at least one site (webmd.com) totally breaks if any
>>> fragment ID is exposed to the page. This makes it difficult to create a
>>> link that uses this feature but which is safe in all browsers:
>>> - Since there is no feature detection mechanism, it's hard for a webpage
>>> to know whether it should issue such a link. It would have to be based on
>>> UA string checks, which is regrettable.
>>> - A link meant for a supporting browser can end up in a non-supporting
>>> browser, at the very least by copy paste from the URL field, and perhaps
>>> through other features to share a link.
>>>
>>
>> We do have a feature detection
>> <https://github.com/WICG/scroll-to-text-fragment/#feature-detection-and-future-apis> mechanism
>> for this.
>>
>> On the latter point, this is true but we think implementing fragment
>> directive stripping (removing the part after and including `:~:`) is
>> trivial even if the UA doesn't wish to implement the text-fragment feature.
>> FWIW, we haven't seen or heard of another such example since.
>>
>
We're continued to be concerned about this backwards compatibility issue.
(3) Text fragment trumping a regular fragment ID seems a bit strange. The
>>> more natural semantic would be that the text search starts at the fragment,
>>> so if there are multiple matches it's possible to scroll to a more specific
>>> one. It's not clear why the fragment is instead entirely ignored.
>>>
>>
>> This was discussed in more detail in issue#75
>> <https://github.com/WICG/scroll-to-text-fragment/issues/75>; I agree
>> with Nick's point that the disambiguation syntax is already specific enough
>> that starting from a fragment isn't necessary. This also keeps us
>> mostly-compatible with the TextQuoteSelector
>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#text-quote-selector> specified
>> in WebAnnotations which I think may have benefits for interaction with
>> annotation applications.
>>
>
This will limit the utility of this feature. For something as board
impacting as a URL format change, it seems rather short sighted.
Also, Web Annotations Data Model allows other kinds of annotations:
https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-annotation-model-20170223/#selectors
Is there any reason this particular matching algorithm was picked and only
picked with no possibility of the future extensibility?
- R. Niwa
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div \
dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 7:35 AM David Bokan <<a \
href="mailto:bokan@chromium.org">bokan@chromium.org</a>> \
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px \
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div \
dir="ltr">Friendly ping to get an answer here.<div><br></div><div>Do my answers above \
address those points or is there anything else I can \
clarify?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>David</div></div><br><div \
class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:42 PM \
David Bokan <<a href="mailto:bokan@chromium.org" \
target="_blank">bokan@chromium.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px \
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div \
dir="ltr"><div>[sending (again, sorry) from correct e-mail]</div><div><br></div>I \
think <a href="https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2019-December/030998.html" \
target="_blank">Nick's replies</a> mostly still apply, some updated answers to \
those questions.<span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><div><br></div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px \
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">(1) \
We're concerned about compatibility issues in a world where some browsers support \
this but not all. Aware browsers will strip `:~:`, but unaware browsers won't. I saw \
that on the blink-dev ItS thread, it was mentioned that at least one site (<a \
href="http://webmd.com/" target="_blank">webmd.com</a>) totally breaks if any \
fragment ID is exposed to the page. This makes it difficult to create a link that \
uses this feature but which is safe in all browsers:<br>- Since there is no feature \
detection mechanism, it's hard for a webpage to know whether it should issue such a \
link. It would have to be based on UA string checks, which is regrettable.<br>- A \
link meant for a supporting browser can end up in a non-supporting browser, at the \
very least by copy paste from the URL field, and perhaps through other features to \
share a link.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>We do have a <a \
href="https://github.com/WICG/scroll-to-text-fragment/#feature-detection-and-future-apis" \
target="_blank">feature detection</a> mechanism for \
this.</div><div><br></div><div>On the latter point, this is true but we think \
implementing fragment directive stripping (removing the part after and including \
`:~:`) is trivial even if the UA doesn't wish to implement the text-fragment \
feature. FWIW, we haven't seen or heard of another such example \
since.</div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We're \
continued to be concerned about this backwards compatibility \
issue.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px \
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div \
class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px \
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div \
dir="ltr"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0px 0px 0px \
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">(3) \
Text fragment trumping a regular fragment ID seems a bit strange. The more natural \
semantic would be that the text search starts at the fragment, so if there are \
multiple matches it's possible to scroll to a more specific one. It's not clear why \
the fragment is instead entirely \
ignored.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>This was discussed in more detail \
in <a href="https://github.com/WICG/scroll-to-text-fragment/issues/75" \
target="_blank">issue#75</a>; I agree with Nick's point that the disambiguation \
syntax is already specific enough that starting from a fragment isn't necessary. \
This also keeps us mostly-compatible with the <a \
href="https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#text-quote-selector" \
target="_blank">TextQuoteSelector</a> specified in WebAnnotations which I think may \
have benefits for interaction with annotation \
applications.</div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This \
will limit the utility of this feature. For something as board impacting as a URL \
format change, it seems rather short sighted.</div><div><br></div><div>Also, Web \
Annotations Data Model allows other kinds of annotations:</div><div><a \
href="https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-annotation-model-20170223/#selectors">https://www \
.w3.org/TR/2017/REC-annotation-model-20170223/#selectors</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Is \
there any reason this particular matching algorithm was picked and only picked with \
no possibility of the future extensibility?</div><div><br></div><div>- R. \
Niwa</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic